1. Zarna Patel 1001015672 zarnaben.patel@mavs.uta.edu
Coding Efficiency and Computational Complexity of Video Coding Standards-Including High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)
Zarna Patel

2. Objective
The primary goal of most digital video coding standards has been to optimize coding efficiency.
The objective of this project is to analyze the coding efficiency and computational complexity that can be achieved by use of the emerging High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) standard, relative to the coding efficiency characteristics of its major predecessors including, H.263 [29], and H.264/MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding (AVC) [14].
The compression capabilities of several generations of video coding standards are compared by means of peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR).
In a previous work, an implementation based on HM9.0 reference software was presented [6], but in this project, HM13.0 reference software will be used [7].

3. HEVC Encoder [9]

4. Nominal vertical and horizontal locations of luma and chroma samples in a picture [34]
(b) 4:2:2
(c) 4:4:4

5. Subdivision of a 64 × 64 luma CTB into CBs and TBs [16]
Solid lines indicate CB boundaries and dotted lines indicate TB boundaries. (a) The CTB with its partitioning. (b) The corresponding quadtree. In this example, the leaf nodes are each 8 × 8 in size, although, in general, a TB can actually be as small as 4 × 4

6. Prediction units (PUs) [8]
(a)
(b)
(a) Symmetric and (b) asymmetric PUs

7. Motion Compensation
Integer and fractional sample positions for luma interpolation [9]

8. Filter Coefficients for luma & chroma interpolation
Filter coefficients for luma fractional sample interpolation [9]
Filter coefficients for chroma fractional pels [9]

9. Luma intra prediction modes supported for different PU size [8]
Intra Prediction Modes for HEVC [9]

10. HEVC Profiles, Tiers and Levels
HEVC defines conformance points by profile (combinations of coding tools) and levels (picture sizes, maximum bit rates etc.).
New concept of “tiers” for bit rate and buffering capability
A conforming bitstream must be decodable by any decoder that is conforming the given profile/tier/level combination
3 profiles have been defined
13 levels which cover all important picture sizes ranging from VGA at low end up to 8K x 4K at high end
Most levels have two tiers: High and Main

11. HEVC Profiles “Main” profile
Only 8-bit video with YCbCr 4:2:0 is supported
Wavefront processing can only be used when multiple tiles in a picture are not used
2. “Main Still Picture” profile
For still-image coding applications
Bitstream contains only a single (intra) picture
Includes all (intra) coding features of Main profile
3. “Main 10” profile
Additionally supports up to 10 bits per sample
Includes all coding features of Main profile

12. Tiers and levels with maximum property values [17]

13. HEVC – High-layer syntax structure
The two layer structures (Network Abstraction Layer-NAL and Video Coded Layer-VCL).
Each syntax structure is placed into a logical data packet called a network abstraction layer (NAL) unit.
In the VCL, the pictures are divided into Coding Tree Units (CTUs), each one of them consisting of one luma and two chroma Coding Tree Blocks (CTBs).

14. HEVC- Slices, Tiles and Wavefronts
(b)
(c)
Subdivision of a picture into (a) slices and (b) tiles (c) wavefront parallel processing [16]

15. ITU-T Recommendation H.263
low-delay low bit-rate coding
The coding of motion vectors
has been improved by using
the component-wise median
of the motion vectors of
three neighboring previously
decoded blocks.
Motion vector prediction [29]

16. Multi-frame motion-compensated prediction in H.263
Annex U introduces the concept of multiple reference pictures.
With this feature, motion-compensated prediction is not restricted to use just the last decoded I/P picture as a reference picture.
Instead, multiple decoded reference pictures are inserted into a picture buffer and can be used for inter prediction.
For each motion vector, a reference picture index is transmitted, which indicates the employed reference picture for the corresponding block.
Multi-frame motion-compensated
prediction [36]

17. ITU-T Rec. H.264 / ISO/IEC 14496-10 (MPEG-4 AVC)
One of the most obvious differences from older standards is its increased flexibility for inter coding.
In contrast to prior coding standards, the concept of B pictures is generalized and the picture coding type is decoupled from the coding order and the usage as a reference picture.
Instead of I, P, and B pictures, the standard actually specifies I, P, and B slices.
A picture can contain slices of different types and a picture can be used as a reference for inter prediction of subsequent pictures independently of its slice coding types.
This generalization allowed the usage of prediction structures such as hierarchical B pictures.
Hierarchical B picture prediction structure [33]

18. Intra 4 x 4 luma prediction mode directions [14]
vertical : 0, horizontal : 1, DC : 2, diagonal down left : 3, diagonal down right : 4, vertical right : 5, horizontal down : 6, vertical left : 7, horizontal up : 8

19. Analysis of Coding Efficiency
The compression capability of several generations of video coding standards is compared by means of PSNR.
The combined PSNR (PSNRYUV) is first calculated as the weighted sum of the PSNR per picture of the individual components (PSNRY, PSNRU, and PSNRV), and it is valid for 4:2:0 format only.
PSNRYUV = (6 · PSNRY + PSNRU + PSNRV)/ (1)
 where PSNRY, PSNRU, and PSNRV are each computed as
  PSNR = 10 · log10((2B − 1)2/MSE) (2)
where B = 8 is the number of bits per sample of the video signal to be coded and the MSE is the sum of squared differences divided by the number of samples in the signal.

20. Results about the Benefit of Some Representative Tools
In the HEVC specification, there are several syntax elements that allow various tools to be configured or enabled.
Among these are parameters that specify the minimum and maximum CB size, TB size, and transform hierarchy depth. There are also flags to turn tools such as temporal motion vector prediction (TMVP), AMP, SAO, and transform skip (TS) on or off.
By setting these parameters, the contribution of these tools to the coding performance improvements of HEVC can be gauged.
Here in this project, two coding structures are implemented: one suitable for entertainment applications with random access support and one for interactive applications with low-delay constraints.

21. Test sequences used in comparison
Class
Resolution in Luma Samples
Sequence
Frame Rate A
1280 × 720
Kristen And Sara
Johnny
60 Hz B
832 × 480
Race Horses
Basketball Drill
30 Hz
50 Hz C
416 × 240
Blowing Bubbles
Basketball Pass

22. Frame for each sequence
Kristen And Sara Johnny

23. Frame for each sequence
Race Horses Basketball Drill

24. Frame for each sequence
Basketball Pass Blowing Bubbles

25. Percentage increment in bit rate for equal PSNR relative to HEVC MP when smaller maximum coding block sizes are used instead of 64 × 64 coding blocks
Entertainment Applications
Interactive Applications
Maximum CU Size
32×32
16×16
Class A -
7.1%
34.2%
Class B
1.7%
8.0%
2.4%
10.2%
Class C
0.8%
4.1%
1.2%
5.7%
Overall
1.3%
6.1%
3.6%
16.7%
Enc. Time
80%
57%
82%

26. Maximum Transform Size
Percentage increment in bit rate for equal PSNR relative to HEVC MP when smaller maximum transform block sizes are used instead of 32 × 32 transform blocks
Entertainment Applications
Interactive Applications
Maximum Transform Size
16×16
8×8
Class A -
3.7%
10.3%
Class B
0.8%
3.8%
1.5%
5.5%
Class C
0.3%
2.3%
0.4%
3.0%
Overall
0.6%
3.1%
1.9%
6.3%
Enc. Time
94%
86%
95%
91%

27. Percentage increment in bit rate for equal PSNR relative to HEVC MP when smaller maximum RQT depths are used instead of depth of 3
Entertainment Applications
Interactive Applications
Max RQT Depth 2 1
Class A -
0.3%
0.6%
Class B
0.4%
1.1%
1.4%
Class C
1.0%
1.3%
Overall
Enc. Time
90%
81%
92%
83%

28. Percentage increment in bit rate for equal PSNR relative to HEVC MP when the TMVP, SAO, AMP, and TS tools are turned Off
Entertainment Applications
Interactive Applications
Tools Disabled in MP
TMVP
SAO
AMP TS
Class A -
2.2%
3.2%
1.7%
-0.1%
Class B
2.3%
1.6%
1.0%
0.1%
2.6%
2.8%
1.1%
Class C
0.5%
0.9%
1.2%
0.0%
Overall
2.5%
2.4%
1.3%
Enc. Time
98%
99%
86%
96%
100%
87%

29. Goal
In final report, PSNR and bit rates of HEVC with that of prior video coding standards and also BD-PSNR for both entertainment and interactive applications test sequences will be compared.

30. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
• AMVP: Advanced Motion Vector Prediction
• AVC: Advanced Video Coding
• CABAC: Context Adaptive Binary Arithmetic Coding
• CAVLC: Context Adaptive Variable Length Coding
• CHC: Conversational High Compression
• COD: Coded macroblock indication
• CTB: Coding Tree Block
• CTU: Coding Tree Unit
• CB: Coding Block
• CU: Coding Unit
• DCT: Discrete Cosine Transform
• DBF: Deblocking Filter
• DSP: Digital Signal Processor
• DST: Discrete Sine Transform
• GOB: Group of Block
• HD: High Definition
• HEVC: High Efficiency Video Coding
• HLP: High Latency profile
• HP: High Profile
• JCT-VC: Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding

31. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
• MB: Macroblock
• MSE: Mean square Error
• MV: Motion Vector
• NAL: Network Abstraction Layer
• PB: Prediction Block
• PSNR: Peak signal-to-noise ratio
• PU: Prediction Unit
• RPL: Reference Picture List
• SAO: Sample Adaptive Offset
• SP: Spatial (intra) Prediction
• SVC: Scalable Video Coding
• TB: Transform Block
• TMVP: Temporal Motion Vector Prediction
• TS: Transform Skip
• TU: Transform Unit
• URQ: Uniform Reconstruction Quantization
• VCL: Video Coded Layer
• VGA: Video Graphics Array
• WPP: Wavefront Parallel Processing

32. References
[1] F. Pescador et al, “Complexity analysis of an HEVC decoder based on a digital signal processor”, IEEE Trans. on Consumer Electronics. vol. 59, no. 2, pp , May 2013.
[2] B. Bross, “High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) text specification draft 10 (for FDIS & Consent)”, JCT-VC documents, JCTVC-L1003_v34, Geneva, Switzerland, Jan
To access it, go to this link:
and then give number JCTVC-L1003_v34 in Number field or type title of this document.
[3] Texas Instruments, OMAP3530 Technical Reference Manual, Literature Number SPRUF98X, June 2012.
[4] F. Pescador et al, “An H.264 video decoder based on a DM6437 DSP”, IEEE Trans. on Consumer Electronics. vol. 55, no. 1, pp , Feb
[5] F. Pescador et al, "A DSP based H.264/SVC decoder for a multimedia terminal," IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, vol. 57, no. 2, pp , May 2011.
[6] HEVC Reference Software HM9.0.

33. References
[7] HEVC Reference Software HM13.0:
[8] M.T. Pourazad et al, "HEVC: The New Gold Standard for Video Compression: How Does HEVC Compare with H.264/AVC" IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, vol. 1, no. 3, pp.36-46, July 2012.
[9] G. J. Sullivan et al, "Overview of the High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Standard", IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 22, no. 12, pp , Dec
[10] F. Pescador et al, “On an Implementation of HEVC Video Decoders with DSP Technology”, IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE), pp , Jan
[11] G.J. Sullivan et al, “Standardized Extensions of High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)”, IEEE Journal of Special Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 7, no. 6, pp , December 2013.
[12] F. Pescador et al, “A DSP Based H.264 Decoder for a Multi-Format IP Set-Top Box”, IEEE Trans.on Consumer Electronics, vol. 54, no. 1, pp , February 2008.
[13] T. Lindroth et al, “Complexity Analysis of H.264 Decoder for FPGA Design” IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo”, pp , July 2006.

34. References
[14] S.K. Kwon, A. Tamhankar and K.R. Rao, “Overview of H.264 / MPEG-4 Part 10” J. VCIR, vol. 17, pp , April 2006, Special Issue on "Emerging H.264/AVC Video Coding Standard,".
[15] K.R. Rao, D. N. Kim and J. J. Hwang, “Video Coding standards AVS China, H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10, HEVC, VP6, DIRAC and VC-1”, Springer, 2014.
[16] G.J. Sullivan et al, “High efficiency video coding: the next frontier in video compression [Standards in a Nutshell]”, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 30, no. 1, pp , Jan
[17] ITU-T: "H.265 : High efficiency video coding", April 2013.
To access it, go to
[18] H. Lakshman et al, “Generalized Interpolation-Based Fractional Sample Motion Compensation”, IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 23, no. 3, pp , March 2013.
[19] Video lectures from IIT:
[20] F. Pescador et al, “A DSP HEVC decoder implementation based on open HEVC”, IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics, pp , Jan

35. References
[21] J. Chen et al, “Planar intra prediction improvement”, JCT-VC document, JCTVC-F483, Torino, Italy, July 2011.
To access it, go to this link:
and then give number JCTVC-F483 in Number field or type title of this document.
[22] J. Chen et al, “CE6.a.4: Chroma intra prediction by reconstructed luma samples”, JCT-VC documents, JCTVC-E266, Geneva, Switzerland, March 2011.
and then give number JCTVC-E266 in Number field or type title of this document.
[23] F. Bossen, “HEVC Complexity and Implementation Analysis”, IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 22, no. 12, pp , Dec. 2012
[24] J. R. Ohm et al, “Comparison of the Coding Efficiency of Video Coding Standards—Including High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)”, IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 22, no. 12, pp , Dec
[25] J. Vanne et al, “Comparative Rate-Distortion-Complexity Analysis of HEVC and AVC Video Codecs”, IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 22, no. 12, pp , Dec

36. References
[26] G. Corrêa et al, “Performance and Computational Complexity Assessment of High-Efficiency Video Encoders”, IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 22, no. 12, pp , Dec
[27] G. Bjøntegaard, “Calculation of Average PSNR Differences Between RD Curves”, document VCEG-M33, ITU-T SG 16/Q 6, Austin, TX, Apr
[28] H.264/MPEG-4 AVC Reference Software, Joint Model 18.6, Jan
Online Available:
[29] ITU-T, Video Coding for Low Bitrate Communication, ITU-T Rec. H.263, version 1, 1995, version 2, 1998, version 3, 2000.
[30] ITU-T and ISO/IEC JTC 1, Generic Coding of Moving Pictures and Associated Audio Information—Part 2: Video, ITU-T Rec. H.262 and ISO/IEC (MPEG-2 Video), version 1, 1994.
[31] H. Samet, “The quadtree and related hierarchical data structures,” Comput. Survey, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 187–260, Jun
[32] T. Wiegand et al, “Overview of the H.264/AVC video coding standard,” IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 560–576, Jul

37. References
[33] H. Schwarz et al, “Overview of the scalable video coding extension of the H.264/AVC standard,” IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 1103–1120, Sep
[34] T. Wiegand et al, “WD2: Working Draft 2 of High-Efficiency Video Coding”, JCT-VC document, JCTVC-D503, Daegu, KR, Jan
To access it, go to this link:
and then give number JCTVC-D503 in Number field or type title of this document.
[35] G. Côté et al, “H.263+: Video Coding at Low Bit Rates”, IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 8, no. 7, pp , Nov
[36] Discussion on “Multi-Frame Motion-Compensated Prediction” by Fraunhofer HHI
[37] To download test sequences: 1) 2)

38. References [38] Special issues on HEVC
1. Special issue on emerging research and standards in next generation video coding, IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 22, pp , Dec
2. Special issue on emerging research and standards in next generation video coding, IEEE Trans. on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 23, pp , Dec
3. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 7, pp , Dec